Since everyone wants to talk about taking away gun rights again...

🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱  
@hansw@mastodon.social Great I think that will giveus a foundation to work with. So Now ill provide some data, let me explain a bit how the grange...

@freemo No. They want to take away automatic weapons from people with mental issues.

People like you and me will be happy owners of the needed rocket launchers for personal defense against bears.

@pthenq1 No, what the hell are you talking about... automatic weapons have been illegal since the 70s.

@freemo They said nothing about "taking away gun rights again". But if you are going to twist what they said, why could I not twist what you said? 👀

@pthenq1 yes they did, they are talking about banning certain types of guns, therefore taking away our right to access to those guns.

@freemo okay. I support the right of get weapons.

Still, nobody can get always the guns they want. Today, for example, I would like portable small atomic bombs. You know, the ones handy to blow up 1 or 2 blocks.

They do not let us put our hands on that... and other weapons.

@pthenq1 Its even illegal for nations to have nuclear weapons, even the ones that have it arent allowed to as they were required to disarm ages ago and didnt... so no, bad example buddy.

@freemo same story. When/If they declare some weapon illegal and you have it, you will have to surrender it.

Other than that, perhaps someone wants a semiautomatic to defend himself from bears.

I want a nuclear mini-nuke to combat field mices. We are all tuned against dangerous environments... :awesome:

@pthenq1 @freemo the constitution bans ex post facto laws. since guns are property (and not under some 'license' shitbaggery like the losers in canada) it can't be "bought back" without basically violating the constitution.
@pthenq1 @freemo our combination of having an absolute right to keep and bear arms has been quite a thorn which is why they spend so much effort on scare tactics and "extreme risk warrants" to find ways to seize them without having to admit to seizing them.

@icedquinn

If they actually played by the rules they would just make a new amendment, legal, no problem.. oh wait.. they cant get the votes! So instead they try to erode it in other ways.

@pthenq1

@freemo No. They cannot. It is just about banning weapons on mentally impaired people..

@icedquinn

@pthenq1

There are two things you can mean by that.. banning it for people who were commited against their will by commiting a crime, those people are already banned from having guns..

Or your suggesting the right to bare arms should be revoked for anyone who voluntarily chooses to go to a psychiatrist and has been treated?

The second one is the only one where they can currently get tguns.. but it makes no sense. There is no public registry where people who seek psychiatric treatment on their own get registered and publicly can be "pinged" in a check... so your suggesting something quite obscene, that if I decide to call a psychiatrist and seek help then I will get on a public registry where gun shops can look me up, and my rights become revoked...

For one having a public registry where people are punished for seeking mental health is beyond a horrible idea, doubly so if the consequence is to loose your fundemental rights.

Do you really think anyone who is struggling with a mental disorder who feels they need to see a psychiatrist is going to do it if the law states that should they go to get treated they forfit a basic right for the rest of their life?

God what a horrible idea.

@icedquinn

@freemo @pthenq1
> having rights revoked for seeking mental help
this is why the baker act exists in florida

@icedquinn no. Only for psychotics and psychopaths

Normal people (neurotics) looking for mental help are OK with weapons. We have the brain correctly wired (and perhaps we are fuck up because family or life history). The other 2 groups have broken brains basically.
@freemo

@pthenq1

So a psychotic o psychopath who wants to get help.. only they will be forced not to get help?

And schizophrenics who hallucinate people that arent there, them your cool having guns?

@icedquinn

@freemo schizophrenics have are a type of psychotic. All of them share the same problem: They do not have a real perception of reality. Except (perhaps) with pills.

Neurotics have a good check of reality. And that never changes. Even when someone get LCD and "see things" they know it is because the LCD. And they will be OK after the effect is gone.

Normal people (neurotics)'s rights will be OK. With or without treatment.

@icedquinn

Follow

@pthenq1

I know what they are but you havent addressed the problem.. You are suggesting a system where my friend who was schizofrenic should have continued to hide his condition and avoid a psychiatrist to retain his rights, something he did successfully for years, making him far more of a risk than a medicated person with their rights in tacts and condition treated.

@icedquinn

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.